get_mailbox_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation but does not describe what 'detailed information' contains, what happens if the mailbox does not exist, whether authentication requires to be ready, or that the operation is safe to call idempotently.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the primary action ('Get detailed information') and scopes it to a specific mailbox. It earns a 5; it just lacks a bit of detail that would make it fully informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although the parameter schema is clear, the description lacks any indication of what the 'detailed information' will contain, and there is no output schema to infer from. It also doesn't clarify why an agent would actually use this tool in the workflow vs list_mailboxes to get names. For a tool expected to return meaningful content, this is a notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of the two parameters with clear descriptions ('The name of the account that contains the mailbox', 'The name of the mailbox to retrieve'). The description adds no new semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is complete, so this meets the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb (Get) and a resource ('detailed information about a specific mailbox'), scoped to 'a Mail.app account.' It distinguishes from list_mailboxes implicitly by targeting one mailbox rather than enumerating them, but it never names a sibling tool or explicitly calls out what differentiates it from get_account_detail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'specific' implies a use case where the agent already knows which mailbox to query, as opposed to listing mailboxes. However, the description provides no explicit direction on when to use this tool versus list_mailboxes or get_account_detail, and there are no stated exclusions or prerelems.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.